JUDGMENT

Petitioner was one of the accused in Crime No.516/2013 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, which was initially registered for the offence under section 395 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and later altered to section 398 and section 109 of IPC. Petitioner seeks for a direction to conduct an impartial enquiry into the allegations in Ext.P1 final report filed in Crime No.539/2013 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, which was subsequently renumbered as Crime No.84/CR/OCW-III/PKD/13 of the Detective Inspectors, CBCID, Thrissur.

2. According to the prosecution, certain persons who were travelling in a Santro car bearing No.KL-11AG-8951 was waylaid with the intention to commit dacoity and after pushing the car into a paddy field, the accused broke open the window and committed dacoity by taking away an amount of Rs.50 lakhs inside the car. Petitioner further alleged that during the investigation it was revealed that Indian Currency worth Rs.3.22 (2,50 Crores) Crores were allegedly hidden inside the vehicle and respondents 5 to 7 stole the said currency. A crime was thereafter registered as FIR No.539/2013 of Kunnamkulam Police Station. According to the petitioner, the transaction involved in the above crime is in the nature of a ‘hawala’ and ought to be probed into with seriousness. However, without any proper investigation and due to extraneous considerations, a final report was filed in Crime No.539/2013 referring the case as 'undetected'.

3. Petitioner alleges that when he came to know about Ext.P1 final report, he filed Crl.M.C. No.815/2022. However, the said Crl.M.C. was dismissed reserving his remedies against the closure of Crime No.539/2013. According to the petitioner, in Crime No.516/2013 a final report has been filed alleging offences punishable under sections 398 and 109 IPC while the offence in Crime No.539/2013, which arose out of the same transaction was concluded as ‘undetected’.

4. Petitioner contends that though illicit hawala transactions were involved in the crime, the investigation has now been closed and final report submitted referring the case as 'undetected'.

5. Sri. Salil Narayanan K.A., learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the investigation was not conducted properly and the same is reflected in filing of the final report without any materials.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that more time is needed to produce the documents. However on the basis of the instructions given, learned Public prosecutor submitted that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is only to be dismissed.

7. On a perusal of Ext.P1 final report referring the case as 'undetected', it is evident that despite the detailed investigation conducted by the Police, they have not been able to retrieve any material allegedly involved in Crime No.539/2013. Having regard to the circumstances that investigation has been going on from 2016 onwards, I am of the view that no purpose would be achieved by directing a further investigation.

Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed.